Author
Topic: Marxism 101: Socialism and Communism (Read 5659 times)

I agree and distrust idealists also -- the best socioeconomic model is a mixture of both capitalism and socialism. How far the scale is tipped in favor of one side or the other has to depend on the political and economic situation of the nation in question. Economically-stable developed countries should not have the same socioeconomic model as underdeveloped or developing countries.

You can't build a capitalist haven in a So-Comm society as described by OP, of which contemporary China is certainly not an example. But you can build a socialist haven, a collective commune based on cooperation, inside a capitalist state, even in the United States. The only problem is that you will need to make money to pay property tax, but then again you can register your 'communal' organization as a church and not pay any property or income tax :P.

Bolded not possible, capitalism and socialism are anti-thetic(1st 4 vids). Please refer to "class warfare" and the "dem-soc/1st Worldism" vids above. 2nd bolded, I never claimed to do that, socialism and capitalism are anti-thetic. You can have state control of certain industries and private capitalist control of others and worker coops of others, in which case the entire society could not be called "socialistic. Churches should pay taxes, I don't want to fund them.

Logged

The Revolution does not fall like an apple when it is ripe: you have to MAKE it fall...

1) AS to your preference for Scandanavian countries, I file that reply under "1st Worldist attitude" and kindly refer you to the Unruhe vids on that subject above.

I have no time to watch videos -- kindly share summary in writing.

I'll admit, I am biased: I live in the first world, so my attitude will reflect the situation in which I live. That is true for everyone else. As much as I try to walk in the shoes of others, it seems to me that people migrate in the direction of the first world, not the other way.

2) In matters of socioeconomics, if a group gets together to overthrow the socialist order, yes, they will be met with the options. Just as in the USA everyone is required to obey the rules of capitalism and not threaten it's existence. AS to other things, anyone can think anything in a so-comm society.

It is a false equivalence. There is [certain degree of liberty] in the US and the political means to change from capitalism to socialism theoretically exist. It is a process, however; a political, non-violent process. Can it happen? Yes. Will it happen? Probably not. In So-Comm utopia, that has never been the case; you criticize the regime and find yourself in a hole or, worse, dead. You do not even have to organize; merely voice opposition.

3)Everyone prospers under socialism ands no one is "owned" like in capitalism, if it is done correctly, but as I said, socialism is always under attack by the capitalists--US embargos are a bitch! I refer you to the 1st 4 vids of this thread. What you are describing is capitalism, where the means of production/land are owned by the bourgeois class--no poverty, right?(Image removed from quote.)

Could you cite example of socialist society where everyone is prosperous? That seems like a bold claim closer to fiction than reality, no offense.

US embargos are not responsible for deplorable situation of countries like Cuba -- we are not the only country in the world. This is an excuse.

Venezuela, North Korea -- no embargos yet no cigar to your argument either.

There are 195 other countries in the world that Cuba could trade with. Embargo excuse is old and tired.

I have no time to watch videos -- kindly share summary in writing.

I'll admit, I am biased: I live in the first world, so my attitude will reflect the situation in which I live. That is true for everyone else. As much as I try to walk in the shoes of others, it seems to me that people migrate in the direction of the first world, not the other way.

It is a false equivalence. There is [certain degree of liberty] in the US and the political means to change from capitalism to socialism theoretically exist. It is a process, however; a political, non-violent process. Can it happen? Yes. Will it happen? Probably not. In So-Comm utopia, that has never been the case; you criticize the regime and find yourself in a hole or, worse, dead. You do not even have to organize; merely voice opposition.

Could you cite example of socialist society where everyone is prosperous? That seems like a bold claim closer to fiction than reality, no offense.

US embargos are not responsible for deplorable situation of countries like Cuba -- we are not the only country in the world. This is an excuse.

Venezuela, North Korea -- no embargos yet no cigar to your argument either.

The 1st World owes it's material existence to the resources of the 3rd World, primarily, including the slave labor. It is false to say that the US, thru political process, could change from capitalistic to socialistic--they are antithetic. The US political bourgeois politics support the capitalists, that is it's function. The US is an oligarchy, a plutocracy.

The USSR went from a backward, Czarist ruled feudalistic society to an industrialized socialistic country that became the #2 super power in roughly 20-30 years. Maoist China did the same thing. There was essentially no unemployment, homelessness or hunger in either country after the inititial transitions. If you favor capitalism because you benefit from the exploitation of the working classes, especially in the 3rd World, it is your prerogative to think that way--since you materially benefit from it and apparently dont give a damn about the working class, which is consistent with capitalists.

Embargos are real, economic warfare, and people die(just ask Iraq), and the US has blocked nearly all other countries from trading with Cuba, it is fact, it is an undebatable point. And Cuba's main export in SUGAR.

One thing that bothers me about most atheists, is that most are still capitalists and don't seem to have thought about that too much while voicing all their alleged "freedom".

Atheists, like everyone else, are raised with the political and social norms of the time and place. One shouldn't be surprised to learn that Western atheists by and large favor capitalism over communism.

But even so, it's no secret that Western atheists, particularly liberals, are often critical of the excesses of capitalism.

After the overthrow of the former power structure, the same options apply--it's an ongoing class struggle, no rev has ever been "complete". So-Comm countries have always been under attack in one form or another by the capitalists/imperialists.

Communist glory perpetually thwarted by those dasdardly capitalists. At first blush, this seems suspiciously like blame-shifting. Instead of "I failed the test" it is "the teacher gave me a F". Which one is actually the case?

A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

Personally, I consider communists and libertarians two sides of the same coin. Both sound great in theory, but in practice don't work well. The libertarians assume humans will usually act in a rational, self interested way. In truth, humans tend to be quite irrational, greedy, and exploitative of one another. Communists have the opposite problem: They underestimate the evolutionary and social drive of personal ambition, which tends to lead to stagnation, along with economic and social decline. The truth is, these are two extremes and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Communism and American Libertarianism are polar opposites, the latter being extreme, unregulated capitalism.

Atheists, like everyone else, are raised with the political and social norms of the time and place. One shouldn't be surprised to learn that Western atheists by and large favor capitalism over communism.

But even so, it's no secret that Western atheists, particularly liberals, are often critical of the excesses of capitalism.

Atheists do in fact think and talk about this stuff a great deal, though they might not agree on the remedy you propose.

A CEO makes more like 1000X than a janitor.

Massive concentration of wealth at the top is the natural outcome/functioning of capitalism, that's what it is designed to do. Capitalism/imperialism is also designed to eventually exhaust all resources and in the process--along with the inherent wars--will destroy the planet and human species. Marx said it in the mid 19th century. And here we are.

Liberals/Progs are pro capitalist, they just want more of the capitalistic spoils for themselves with no regard for the working/poor/slaver classes who are the producers. So-comm's appeal is to the working class, obviously.

Communist glory perpetually thwarted by those dasdardly capitalists. At first blush, this seems suspiciously like blame-shifting. Instead of "I failed the test" it is "the teacher gave me a F". Which one is actually the case?

So-comm societies make mistakes, no doubt. It's a heavy heavy lift to transform to a socialistic society. AND the capitalists attack in every way and at every turn. That is factual. Just look at the constant US anti-commie propaganda for decades.

Reality also is, as long as you have an owning class with all the wealth and a wage slave working class, the latter will always seek to overthrow the former, doesnt matter what the former thinks about it.

Massive concentration of wealth at the top is the natural outcome/functioning of capitalism, that's what it is designed to do.

Good thing then that pure capitalism unrestrained by regulation isn't what's actually going on. Also, the problem is much worse in some capitalist countries than others. But yeah, it's definitely worrisome.

Quote

Capitalism/imperialism is also designed to eventually exhaust all resources and in the process--along with the inherent wars--will destroy the planet and human species.

I really want to disagree with that assessment, yet after pouring over the latest climate change figures, I'm not in much of a position to argue.

Quote

Liberals/Progs are pro capitalist, they just want more of the capitalistic spoils for themselves with no regard for the working/poor/slaver classes who are the producers.

I could've sworn their concern is focused on the working poor. We must be reading very different articles.

I'm not sure my little joke landed, but I wasn't claiming the 10x figure is reality, I was pointing out that a *mere* 10x difference would be a minor disparity compared to the current situation.

That said, Doug McMillon (CEO of Walmart) makes 9,323/hour while the starting wage at Walmart is $9/hour, so 1000x is plausible. It might be more like 200x. Whatever the actual figure is, it makes 10x look positively utopian in comparison.Good thing then that pure capitalism unrestrained by regulation isn't what's actually going on. Also, the problem is much worse in some capitalist countries than others. But yeah, it's definitely worrisome.I really want to disagree with that assessment, yet after pouring over the latest climate change figures, I'm not in much of a position to argue.I could've sworn their concern is focused on the working poor. We must be reading very different articles.

Capitalism assumes unlimited resources for the sole purpose of making consumer goods for profit and concentrating that profit to a few. Most the goods are therefore junk, with planned obsolescence, and end up in the landfills. And there are "externalities", like pollution, "death from work", public picks up the tab, etc.

So, Nature--->consumer good---->landfill + externalities--thats consumer capitalism. It must extend to imperialism, with the wars, to gain more resources elsewhere. Obviously, Nature has a limit, and will impose that limit at some point. In some ways it's already doing that.

Liberals actually hate the working class, I know this first hand. Liberals are capitalists, thru and thru.

I would pay good money (distributed according to need, of course) for you to debate our resident libertarian. That would be epic. I would eat my body weight in popcorn!

Ok, my fee is $10k, line 'er up!

I don't know why this is so difficult for people(well I do, brainwashing). It's all really quite simple, and so-comm is actually a scientific analysis of socio-economic phenomena, material relationships between humans. So the science should have appeal to atheists, who tend to like science.

US or Austrian(Mises) Libertarianism is unfettered, or highly deregulated capitalism. Wall St. is already there. Communism is unfettered, well, socialism, so they are polar opposites. Libertarianism is essentially fascism.